No, you are right, it`s not their fault, but it is an apples to oranges comparison nonetheless. Because you know very well that for a number of reasons it is nearly impossible to win as many as 150 titles in modern tennis, you would need to win 10 titles per year in a 15 year span, and that number sounds ridiculuos. So, sure it is an amazing feat for Laver, Tilden, Rosewall, Connors, etc to have that amount of titles, but you can`t use it when comparing them to modern players. The same can be said about the slam count, it is not fair to Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, etc, when comparing them to Federer or Sampras.

Click to expand...

I think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments in one year but as BobbyOne mentioned in the post above me, players like Federer tend to focus on the majors nowadays. Look what Federer recently said, he basically said that he wanted to limit his schedule to get ready for the next Olympics in what I assume he hopes to win the Gold Medal.

The players in the past, even the recent past like the Borg era focused not on the classic majors, which were important but not the end all that it is now. Borg for example won 21 tournaments in 1979 and he obviously entered a decent amount of tournaments that year. I think Laver entered about 37 tournaments one year and remember they also played doubles in those days! Federer for example from 2004 to 2012 never entered more than 19 tournaments in a year and he played as few as 15 in 2005 and 2009. A player is far more rested and less prone to injury. It's a smart thing to do. The players today don't have to worry about the monetary aspect because they are set for life. Players in the past had to be more concerned about money.

Yes I do think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments but they don't have to and why should they?

Now Federer has done quite well in the so called Mickey Mouse tournaments. His string last year in winning Basle, Bercy and London was extremely impressive. His record in Masters is also very good. Of the current crop of players he seems to be the most resilient and consistent player over the course of a year. Nadal for example has more highs and lows in his form, his physical shape and motivation.

Now Federer has done quite well in the so called Mickey Mouse tournaments. His string last year in winning Basle, Bercy and London was extremely impressive. His record in Masters is also very good. Of the current crop of players he seems to be the most resilient and consistent player over the course of a year. Nadal for example has more highs and lows in his form, his physical shape and motivation.

Click to expand...

The way some put it the players should only play the four majors a year because no other tournaments count.

I think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments in one year but as BobbyOne mentioned in the post above me, players like Federer tend to focus on the majors nowadays. Look what Federer recently said, he basically said that he wanted to limit his schedule to get ready for the next Olympics in what I assume he hopes to win the Gold Medal.

The players in the past, even the recent past like the Borg era focused not on the classic majors, which were important but not the end all that it is now. Borg for example won 21 tournaments in 1979 and he obviously entered a decent amount of tournaments that year. I think Laver entered about 37 tournaments one year and remember they also played doubles in those days! Federer for example from 2004 to 2012 never entered more than 19 tournaments in a year and he played as few as 15 in 2005 and 2009. A player is far more rested and less prone to injury. It's a smart thing to do. The players today don't have to worry about the monetary aspect because they are set for life. Players in the past had to be more concerned about money.

Yes I do think it is possible to win a lot of tournaments but they don't have to and why should they?

Click to expand...

I agree with you at some degree. So which has more value?? Laver`s 200 or Federer`s 76??? It is far from an easy task to compare them. The money earned by modern top players is just one factor, the other main factor is the physicality of todays game. Much much harder than 50 years ago IMO, i find delusional to think that in this tennis we have nowadays someone could have a season like Rosewall had in 1974 or his 3 or 4 prior years for that matter. The last example of someone going deep at a slam at that age was Connors IIRC, 20 years ago!!!!! (and Courier wiped the floor with him in the semis). Agassi`s body just gave up at 35, so could you imagine Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, et all competing in a grind fest with Djoko or Nadal at 32+ years old. Nope you can`t, so Laver winning 15+ titles in 1970 would never happen in modern tennis, as simple as that. I expect Federer to decline rather quickly in the next 2-3 years, it is impossible to keep up. That is why i don`t think you can compare eras and talk about numbers just like that. The lifespan of a top player was at least 3-5 years longer 40 years ago.

I think that unless a superhuman player comes along in the next years, no player will ever surpass Connors ATP titles record (109). Much less Laver`s, Tilden`s kind of numbers. Davydenko is an example of a top player entering 30 tournaments per year, and even in his prime (2005-2009), he couldn`t win more than 4-5 mickey mouse tournaments a year. So i just can`t see how even someone as talented as Federer is could win 15+ tournaments per year for more than 10 years. In this era, no NO WAY.

I agree with you at some degree. So which has more value?? Laver`s 200 or Federer`s 76??? It is far from an easy task to compare them. The money earned by modern top players is just one factor, the other main factor is the physicality of todays game. Much much harder than 50 years ago IMO, i find delusional to think that in this tennis we have nowadays someone could have a season like Rosewall had in 1974 or his 3 or 4 prior years for that matter. The last example of someone going deep at a slam at that age was Connors IIRC, 20 years ago!!!!! (and Courier wiped the floor with him in the semis). Agassi`s body just gave up at 35, so could you imagine Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, et all competing in a grind fest with Djoko or Nadal at 32+ years old. Nope you can`t, so Laver winning 15+ titles in 1970 would never happen in modern tennis, as simple as that. I expect Federer to decline rather quickly in the next 2-3 years, it is impossible to keep up. That is why i don`t think you can compare eras and talk about numbers just like that. The lifespan of a top player was at least 3-5 years longer 40 years ago.

I think that unless a superhuman player comes along in the next years, no player will ever surpass Connors ATP titles record (109). Much less Laver`s, Tilden`s kind of numbers. Davydenko is an example of a top player entering 30 tournaments per year, and even in his prime (2005-2009), he couldn`t win more than 4-5 mickey mouse tournaments a year. So i just can`t see how even someone as talented as Federer is could win 15+ tournaments per year for more than 10 years. In this era, no NO WAY.

Click to expand...

ARFED, The likes of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez were exceptions even in their time because they were awesome players much ahead of their colleagues. And I claim that the three were better players than Federer. Thus their success.

ARFED, The likes of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez were exceptions even in their time because they were awesome players much ahead of their colleagues. And I claim that the three were better players than Federer. Thus their success.

Click to expand...

Over a century of tennis and this exceptions emerged all in a window of time of 10 years....yeah i see your point. I wonder how mighty "muscles" would cope during this era with Nadal`s 3500+ rpms over a 4 hour period at 30+ years old. I claim that Federer is clearly a better player than Rosewall and slight ahead of Laver and Gonzalez, but that is just my view. You are entitled to yours

I agree with you at some degree. So which has more value?? Laver`s 200 or Federer`s 76??? It is far from an easy task to compare them. The money earned by modern top players is just one factor, the other main factor is the physicality of todays game. Much much harder than 50 years ago IMO, i find delusional to think that in this tennis we have nowadays someone could have a season like Rosewall had in 1974 or his 3 or 4 prior years for that matter. The last example of someone going deep at a slam at that age was Connors IIRC, 20 years ago!!!!! (and Courier wiped the floor with him in the semis). Agassi`s body just gave up at 35, so could you imagine Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, et all competing in a grind fest with Djoko or Nadal at 32+ years old. Nope you can`t, so Laver winning 15+ titles in 1970 would never happen in modern tennis, as simple as that. I expect Federer to decline rather quickly in the next 2-3 years, it is impossible to keep up. That is why i don`t think you can compare eras and talk about numbers just like that. The lifespan of a top player was at least 3-5 years longer 40 years ago.

I think that unless a superhuman player comes along in the next years, no player will ever surpass Connors ATP titles record (109). Much less Laver`s, Tilden`s kind of numbers. Davydenko is an example of a top player entering 30 tournaments per year, and even in his prime (2005-2009), he couldn`t win more than 4-5 mickey mouse tournaments a year. So i just can`t see how even someone as talented as Federer is could win 15+ tournaments per year for more than 10 years. In this era, no NO WAY.

Click to expand...

Laver's two hundred was at a time where the top players weren't winning a huge amount of tournaments except for some like Laver or Borg so I wouldn't put down Laver's two hundred. It's a fabulous achievement much like Hank Aaron's 755 home run were in MLB.

I'm not 100% convinced of this physicality superiority that everyone claims is tougher today. It's possibly true but again it's one of those statements that is repeated so often this it's assumed to be true. Do they mean that they are better athletes? I would agree with that but if they say it's tougher now, well I'm not sure. Reason is I do think it's extremely tough to swing an old wood racquet for tens of thousands of swings considering it's heavier and has less spin and power.

You look at Maria Sharapova. How great is her physicality? She is not exactly the greatest athlete I've seen in women's tennis and yet she continues to be one of the top players in the world. In fact I think she's a awful athlete but an excellent ball striker. Ferrer is one of the top players but I would exactly say he's like a Greek God. Nadal is a great athlete but he gets hurt all the time without playing a huge amount of tournaments. Some player's styles allow them to play more without injury.

But overall I would say that the player's today are better athletes but I am not sure if the game is tougher to play.

The players today live in great hotels, have their own person team to take care of them, fly in the best airplanes.

The players in the past played doubles and singles. They played matches all the time to earn a living. I would say that's pretty physical also.

We can debate this from kingdom come but I do think it's easier to swing the current racquets than the old wood racquets. My opinion.

Here's a quote from Djokovic on wood racquets from the first article above.

"It's the first time in my life" to hit with it, said Djokovic, born in 1987, long after wood joined the museum shelves of tennis history. The fifth-ranked player in men's professional tennis who competes with a Wilson nBlade graphite racket added, "Now I realize how tough for the players it was 30-40 years ago to play."

Over a century of tennis and this exceptions emerged all in a window of time of 10 years....yeah i see your point. I wonder how mighty "muscles" would cope during this era with Nadal`s 3500+ rpms over a 4 hour period at 30+ years old. I claim that Federer is clearly a better player than Rosewall and slight ahead of Laver and Gonzalez, but that is just my view. You are entitled to yours

Click to expand...

Hoad and Gonzales were superior physical specimens to Fed or Borg or Nadal (is his "training" intake really healthy?).
Hoad not only did five-mile jogs, and intense weight-training, but trained seriously as a boxer.
His boxing experience was vital in determining his tennis tactics, which were extremely aggressive, regardless of the surface.
I suggest that if you take all these players into a dark room and wait for the winner to emerge, it would not be Fed or Borg or Nadal who walked out of the room.
The London Times reporter (Bellamy?) in 1962 stated that watching Hoad play tennis took one back into prehistory to when a man had to kill his dinner before he could eat it.

Over a century of tennis and this exceptions emerged all in a window of time of 10 years....yeah i see your point. I wonder how mighty "muscles" would cope during this era with Nadal`s 3500+ rpms over a 4 hour period at 30+ years old. I claim that Federer is clearly a better player than Rosewall and slight ahead of Laver and Gonzalez, but that is just my view. You are entitled to yours

Click to expand...

You point exactly what I meant in my previous post regarding special caracteristics of each eras. Like you, I think it strange that the long carreer all happened back then.

In the same manner, the actual top 4 hasn't changed for five years. Nearly all the important titles have been won by a top 4 member. A lot of people would think that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are exceptionnal players ahead of their colleagues. But I pointed out that the seeding system, the lack of surfaces diversity help them dominate with such consistency. I believe that there is similar explanation for the longevity of Laver, Rosewall, or Gonzales. I cannot enunciate an hypothesis because I don't know them, so I leave that to you (who did follow tennis back then, or follow it later)

I don't know who is better between Federer and Laver (playing condition changed to much to compare). But I'm certain that it is possible to explain how it is possible for Federer to exist in this era, and possible for Laver to exist in his.

We have to remember how many top players missed some majors in the 1970s and 1980s. For example, Borg only played once at the Australian Open, Connors only played twice at the Australian Open and missed many French Opens.

ARFED, Yes, it's nearly impossible to current players to win 150 tournaments. But why? Because Federer and Co. are not Laver and Rosewall. And they refuse to play many tournaments in order to concentrate to the majors. I doubt that Federer would have won 17 majors if he had a schedule like the greats of older times...

Click to expand...

I agree. of course there were quite a few mickey mouse events that shouldn't be counted in that time.
but on the other hand just counting slams is also unfair because practically there were only 3 slams in the 70s and early 80s (connors and borg skipped them a lot).

it is easier to win a major if you have 25% more chances and have a lot more free weeks then connors had. take away rogers AO titles and he is at 13 slams not a lot ahead of borg...

you need to find a balance between both factors and not just count if one way.

I agree. of course there were quite a few mickey mouse events that shouldn't be counted in that time.
but on the other hand just counting slams is also unfair because practically there were only 3 slams in the 70s and early 80s (connors and borg skipped them a lot).

it is easier to win a major if you have 25% more chances and have a lot more free weeks then connors had. take away rogers AO titles and he is at 13 slams not a lot ahead of borg...

you need to find a balance between both factors and not just count if one way.

Click to expand...

At the same time you have to counterbalance it by understand that the present players also play a lot more majors and obviously if you have more chances to win majors the odds are in your favor to win more. Sampras won 14 majors but he did it in 52 tries. Borg won 11 majors but he did it in 27 tries. Players in the past didn't play many classic majors because of various reasons. Some of them were that they couldn't play the majors, some were being they weren't allowed because of WTT and some were because of boycotts.

Laver's two hundred was at a time where the top players weren't winning a huge amount of tournaments except for some like Laver or Borg so I wouldn't put down Laver's two hundred. It's a fabulous achievement much like Hank Aaron's 755 home run were in MLB.

I'm not 100% convinced of this physicality superiority that everyone claims is tougher today. It's possibly true but again it's one of those statements that is repeated so often this it's assumed to be true. Do they mean that they are better athletes? I would agree with that but if they say it's tougher now, well I'm not sure. Reason is I do think it's extremely tough to swing an old wood racquet for tens of thousands of swings considering it's heavier and has less spin and power.

You look at Maria Sharapova. How great is her physicality? She is not exactly the greatest athlete I've seen in women's tennis and yet she continues to be one of the top players in the world. In fact I think she's a awful athlete but an excellent ball striker. Ferrer is one of the top players but I would exactly say he's like a Greek God. Nadal is a great athlete but he gets hurt all the time without playing a huge amount of tournaments. Some player's styles allow them to play more without injury.

But overall I would say that the player's today are better athletes but I am not sure if the game is tougher to play.

The players today live in great hotels, have their own person team to take care of them, fly in the best airplanes.

The players in the past played doubles and singles. They played matches all the time to earn a living. I would say that's pretty physical also.

We can debate this from kingdom come but I do think it's easier to swing the current racquets than the old wood racquets. My opinion.

Here's a quote from Djokovic on wood racquets from the first article above.

"It's the first time in my life" to hit with it, said Djokovic, born in 1987, long after wood joined the museum shelves of tennis history. The fifth-ranked player in men's professional tennis who competes with a Wilson nBlade graphite racket added, "Now I realize how tough for the players it was 30-40 years ago to play."

Click to expand...

Really interesting points and nice articles by the way, but you are forgetting something here, is the environment that is forcing the players to a more phisycal game. They are better athletes not because they want to, but because they need to in order to success in the current tennis world.
Racquet technology among other things, has made points longer and longer, (surfaces slowing down is also a factor), i know that a rally between Vilas and Borg on clay could last ages :twisted: but with modern racquets and the immense amount of spin they generate the retriving skills of players are increasing exponentially. You can`t come to net anymore unless your approach shot is almost perfect or you will get passed like a club player. Grinding is the new style, and the better athlete will come out on top (provided he has a good skill set). The greatest proof IMO of the physicality of the modern tennis is the Us Open final last year. That third set was a massacre of epic proportions never seen on a tennis court before and i am very doubtful that the average player of the 50`s or 60`s would have handled it better than modern players. In this year Us Open Del Po blasted some balls that it is hard to believe that someone could even touch them, but Djokovic returned them with interest, it was beyond crazy and i think if you watched the match you must agree on this, yes the racquet is a big factor but the physical condition has to be excellent to say the least. For example Federer had to increase his upper body strength because Nadal`s topspin was killing him, i have heard that he needed ice packs on his right shoulder and chest after 2006 rome final.
However, i do believe that the great players do what it is necessary to do in order to win, so the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, etc would adapt their bodys and games to be succesfull in the modern era. But they would be totally diferent players, that is for sure, probably with a two handed backhand, a much more baseline orientated game, they for sure would volley much worse, etc. Would they be as succesfull as they were?? i honestly don`t know.

Hoad and Gonzales were superior physical specimens to Fed or Borg or Nadal (is his "training" intake really healthy?).
Hoad not only did five-mile jogs, and intense weight-training, but trained seriously as a boxer.
His boxing experience was vital in determining his tennis tactics, which were extremely aggressive, regardless of the surface.
I suggest that if you take all these players into a dark room and wait for the winner to emerge, it would not be Fed or Borg or Nadal who walked out of the room.
The London Times reporter (Bellamy?) in 1962 stated that watching Hoad play tennis took one back into prehistory to when a man had to kill his dinner before he could eat it.

I agree. of course there were quite a few mickey mouse events that shouldn't be counted in that time.
but on the other hand just counting slams is also unfair because practically there were only 3 slams in the 70s and early 80s (connors and borg skipped them a lot).

it is easier to win a major if you have 25% more chances and have a lot more free weeks then connors had. take away rogers AO titles and he is at 13 slams not a lot ahead of borg...

you need to find a balance between both factors and not just count if one way.

At the same time you have to counterbalance it by understand that the present players also play a lot more majors and obviously if you have more chances to win majors the odds are in your favor to win more. Sampras won 14 majors but he did it in 52 tries. Borg won 11 majors but he did it in 27 tries. Players in the past didn't play many classic majors because of various reasons. Some of them were that they couldn't play the majors, some were being they weren't allowed because of WTT and some were because of boycotts.

Really interesting points and nice articles by the way, but you are forgetting something here, is the environment that is forcing the players to a more phisycal game. They are better athletes not because they want to, but because they need to in order to success in the current tennis world.
Racquet technology among other things, has made points longer and longer, (surfaces slowing down is also a factor), i know that a rally between Vilas and Borg on clay could last ages :twisted: but with modern racquets and the immense amount of spin they generate the retriving skills of players are increasing exponentially. You can`t come to net anymore unless your approach shot is almost perfect or you will get passed like a club player. Grinding is the new style, and the better athlete will come out on top (provided he has a good skill set). The greatest proof IMO of the physicality of the modern tennis is the Us Open final last year. That third set was a massacre of epic proportions never seen on a tennis court before and i am very doubtful that the average player of the 50`s or 60`s would have handled it better than modern players. In this year Us Open Del Po blasted some balls that it is hard to believe that someone could even touch them, but Djokovic returned them with interest, it was beyond crazy and i think if you watched the match you must agree on this, yes the racquet is a big factor but the physical condition has to be excellent to say the least. For example Federer had to increase his upper body strength because Nadal`s topspin was killing him, i have heard that he needed ice packs on his right shoulder and chest after 2006 rome final.
However, i do believe that the great players do what it is necessary to do in order to win, so the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, etc would adapt their bodys and games to be succesfull in the modern era. But they would be totally diferent players, that is for sure, probably with a two handed backhand, a much more baseline orientated game, they for sure would volley much worse, etc. Would they be as succesfull as they were?? i honestly don`t know.

At the men I would put Borg in first tier. Thus we would have the same top 7, by the way.

Hoad only fourth tier??? Don't you fear Dan's revenge?

I would not rank Newcombe ahead of Sedgman.

And I would omit Emerson. He was never of the Sedgman or Edberg class...

Click to expand...

To be honest I see Borg as about Nadal level (I actually rate Nadal slightly ahead) so if Nadal isnt tier 1, and I dont think he is yet despite being a fan, I dont think Borg is either. JMO. They are the best of my tier 2 for sure though, even though I listed them in alphabetical order to avoid further debates beyond the tiers.

Thanks for reminding me of Betz. I knew I was forgetting someone as my womens lists were too small . Is there anyone else I am forgetting. I think I would put her 4th tier more likely than 3rd though, although I could see a case for her being 3rd as she was the best player in the World most of the post World War 11 years.

I felt Emerson had to be put in some category due to his 12 majors, even though that is obviously no way a reflection of his true abilities. Then again he probably would be nowhere near 5 or 6 majors, so really I shouldnt include him in any of the all time tiers probably.

Hoad had an insane peak level of play, maybe the best ever, but due to terrible injuries never fulfilled his potential and was at his best for quite a short period. I rank by what was, not what if, otherwise I would rank Seles and Connolly in tier 1.

Likewise with the men anyone not yet listed is not an all time great, just a great of their own era (at best).

Click to expand...

Yes, these tiers deserve some comment.
In tier 1, you have listed three players Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, plus others like Newcombe, Emerson, Sedgman all of whom rated Hoad number one all-time.
I don't think that Hoad belongs in a "tier", he is more in a category of his own, the strongest player, but also the most range of strokes of any player.
Also, you have named 29 players. How about cutting it down a bit, to about 12? Like this:
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

These first four rankings are Rosewall's own choice in 2010.
Plus the following, my own choices:

To be honest I see Borg as about Nadal level (I actually rate Nadal slightly ahead) so if Nadal isnt tier 1, and I dont think he is yet despite being a fan, I dont think Borg is either. JMO. They are the best of my tier 2 for sure though, even though I listed them in alphabetical order to avoid further debates beyond the tiers.

Thanks for reminding me of Betz. I knew I was forgetting someone as my womens lists were too small . Is there anyone else I am forgetting. I think I would put her 4th tier more likely than 3rd though, although I could see a case for her being 3rd as she was the best player in the World most of the post World War 11 years.

I felt Emerson had to be put in some category due to his 12 majors, even though that is obviously no way a reflection of his true abilities. Then again he probably would be nowhere near 5 or 6 majors, so really I shouldnt include him in any of the all time tiers probably.

Hoad had an insane peak level of play, maybe the best ever, but due to terrible injuries never fulfilled his potential and was at his best for quite a short period. I rank by what was, not what if, otherwise I would rank Seles and Connolly in tier 1.

Click to expand...

NadalAgassi, Thanks for considering Betz who turned pro and kept her high level till around 1960.

Emerson won six Australian Championships where mostly the field was rather weak.

I believe it was pc1 who showed that Borg had the best lifetime percentage of all players and won 11 GS tournaments out of only 27 if I remember well. He dominated in a few years as probably no other player did (with the exception of Laver in 1967 and 1969).

Yes, these tiers deserve some comment.
In tier 1, you have listed three players Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, plus others like Newcombe, Emerson, Sedgman all of whom rated Hoad number one all-time.
I don't think that Hoad belongs in a "tier", he is more in a category of his own, the strongest player, but also the most range of strokes of any player.
Also, you have named 29 players. How about cutting it down a bit, to about 12? Like this:
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

These first four rankings are Rosewall's own choice in 2010.
Plus the following, my own choices:

Being sarcastic I could agree that Hoad does not belong to a tier or would emerge in tier 0 (zero) as his record is rather "humble"

Putting Tilden at place 12 is as bizarre as Hoad's first place.

I wonder how many years must come till you begin to realize that those players who rank Hoad at first place have done it with regard to Lew's peak play and NOT regarding his achievements that are not worth of a top tier!!!

Sorry I knew there was someone else I was forgetting. Yes I would definitely bput Hart in the same tier as DuPont and Brough, however I dont think I would put her in a higher tier than them. In fact most of her career DuPont and Brough were considered superior to her, so even if she is better than them, it isnt by much.

I also think Tier 5 is bit too low for Gibson. What she had to overcome to reach the top was incredible, and she was truly a trailblazer for future black women in the game.

Serena probably is tier 2 now but is already the best of tier 2 and will have to be included in tier 1 very soon I predict.

Yes, these tiers deserve some comment.
In tier 1, you have listed three players Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, plus others like Newcombe, Emerson, Sedgman all of whom rated Hoad number one all-time.
I don't think that Hoad belongs in a "tier", he is more in a category of his own, the strongest player, but also the most range of strokes of any player.
Also, you have named 29 players. How about cutting it down a bit, to about 12? Like this:
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Laver
4) Federer

These first four rankings are Rosewall's own choice in 2010.
Plus the following, my own choices:

Being sarcastic I could agree that Hoad does not belong to a tier or would emerge in tier 0 (zero) as his record is rather "humble"

Putting Tilden at place 12 is as bizarre as Hoad's first place.

I wonder how many years must come till you begin to realize that those players who rank Hoad at first place have done it with regard to Lew's peak play and NOT regarding his achievements that are not worth of a top tier!!!

Click to expand...

Frankly, I am less interested in compiling questionable achievements than with comparing the level of play. Achieving the highest level of play ever and maintaining it for a five-year stretch is itself a fantastic achievement.

Frankly, I am less interested in compiling questionable achievements than with comparing the level of play. Achieving the highest level of play ever and maintaining it for a five-year stretch is itself a fantastic achievement.

Click to expand...

Dan, ranking along achievements, while still not easy, is more reasonable than ranking along peak play.

But in Hoad's case it's yet rather easy to rank him regarding achievements because his record is not worthy of a top ten player!

I regret to always tell you how poor Lew's record is but you should accept tennis history and be brave therein...

It's again exposing: You belittle the category "achievements" in order to push Hoad since he cannot compete with other players' achievements.

You show your old strange game: Firstly you claim Hoad is the best regarding achievements. Then, secondly, after people have disproved your claim, you claim that achievements are questionable. It's the next rabbit off your hat! Please come out with a new game of honesty!

Hmm you consider Kramer, Sedgman, and Vines all superior to Sampras, Borg,a and Tilden? Interesting. Just curious as to why you feel that way.

Regarding Hoad did he have a year he was regarded the number 1 player in the World?

Click to expand...

Happy to answer that.
It is difficult to judge players from different eras, but I think Vines showed his level to be consistently close to Budge, and I would like Kramer's chances in a best-of-one-hundred series against anyone, certainly against Sampras. A hot Sedgman could beat anyone.
Difficult to judge Tilden, as the field in the twenties was short on big names. He beat Johnston by about the same margin as Williams did, so perhaps they were about the same stature.

Hoad was probably regarded number one amateur at the end of 1953, when he was the only amateur to be offered a pro contract by Kramer, and was 2 and 0 against Trabert, 5 and 0 against Rosewall, the other two contenders.
He was regarded as number one amateur for 1956, although his back problems prevented him from winning the grand slam.
Hoad was regarded by Sports Illustrated as number one for 1959, and also by Kramer's organization for the same year in the year-end summary, cited by Anderson in his article for World Tennis.

Dan, ranking along achievements, while still not easy, is more reasonable than ranking along peak play.

But in Hoad's case it's yet rather easy to rank him regarding achievements because his record is not worthy of a top ten player!

I regret to always tell you how poor Lew's record is but you should accept tennis history and be brave therein...

It's again exposing: You belittle the category "achievements" in order to push Hoad since he cannot compete with other players' achievements.

You show your old strange game: Firstly you claim Hoad is the best regarding achievements. Then, secondly, after people have disproved your claim, you claim that achievements are questionable: Please come out with a new game of honesty!

Click to expand...

I challenge only "questionable" achievements, for example, Emerson's long domination of the amateur game. Or Kramer's inflated victories over an injured Gonzales or an injured Sedgman.
It is important to put achievements INTO CONTEXT, and not simply regurgitate numbers as if all major wins are somehow identical, regardless of the strength of the field.
That is why I rate Hoad's achievements so high, the quality of his opposition was the highest ever.

Happy to answer that.
It is difficult to judge players from different eras, but I think Vines showed his level to be consistently close to Budge, and I would like Kramer's chances in a best-of-one-hundred series against anyone, certainly against Sampras. A hot Sedgman could beat anyone.
Difficult to judge Tilden, as the field in the twenties was short on big names. He beat Johnston by about the same margin as Williams did, so perhaps they were about the same stature.

Hoad was probably regarded number one amateur at the end of 1953, when he was the only amateur to be offered a pro contract by Kramer, and was 2 and 0 against Trabert, 5 and 0 against Rosewall, the other two contenders.
He was regarded as number one amateur for 1956, although his back problems prevented him from winning the grand slam.
Hoad was regarded by Sports Illustrated as number one for 1959, and also by Kramer's organization for the same year in the year-end summary, cited by Anderson in his article for World Tennis.

I challenge only "questionable" achievements, for example, Emerson's long domination of the amateur game. Or Kramer's inflated victories over an injured Gonzales or an injured Sedgman.
It is important to put achievements INTO CONTEXT, and not simply regurgitate numbers as if all major wins are somehow identical, regardless of the strength of the field.
That is why I rate Hoad's achievements so high, the quality of his opposition was the highest ever.

Click to expand...

Dan, following your statements, it seems as though most players were injured when losing to others. Of course Hoad on first place to mention.

Please accept that players can lose to others even when healthy, f.i. Gonzalez and Sedgman to Kramer.

But I agree that Hoad's opposition was probably the all-time strongest.

Kramer's ORGANIZATION ranked Hoad as number one for 1959, using a points system.
Hoad was ranked number one by some observers for 1953, considering Davis Cup play. Was Jack Kramer an "observer"?

Click to expand...

Dan, Hoad was "ranked" No.1 only for his win of the tournament tour. It virtually was not a ranking but it was counting the points he has made in that tour which was NOT identic with the year's summary. As usual yo forget the 4 man world tour...

Please tell me which expert ranked Hoad No.1 for 1953. As you should know his record, apart from Davis Cup play, was rather weak that year. As told Tingay (and that way Collins) ranked Lew No.5 only.

Dan, Hoad was "ranked" No.1 only for his win of the tournament tour. It virtually was not a ranking but it was counting the points he has made in that tour which was NOT identic with the year's summary. As usual yo forget the 4 man world tour...

Please tell me which expert ranked Hoad No.1 for 1953. As you should know his record, apart from Davis Cup play, was rather weak that year. As told Tingay (and that way Collins) ranked Lew No.5 only.

Click to expand...

It was listed as a DETERMINATION of THE BEST PLAYERS of 1959, with the purpose of determining a RANKING. The 4-man was also billed as a world championship, but was really only a 4-man tour, and did not include the full 12-man group.
Tingay was only one commentator, and he did not consider Davis Cup play in his evaluation, the most important event in tennis. There was another ranking Hoad first (which I will seek out).
Hoad had the most consistent year, winning the most important matches in the most prestigious event, the Davis Cup, and five other important tournaments throughout the year, beating Rosewall in each one. And both matches with Trabert. No other player had a better year.
Again, do you consider Kramer to be an "observer"?

It was listed as a DETERMINATION of THE BEST PLAYERS of 1959, with the purpose of determining a RANKING. The 4-man was also billed as a world championship, but was really only a 4-man tour, and did not include the full 12-man group.
Tingay was only one commentator, there was another ranking Hoad first (which I will seek out).
Hoad had the most consistent year, winning the most important matches in the most prestigious event, the Davis Cup, and five other important tournaments throughout the year, beating Rosewall in each one. And both matches with Trabert.
Again, do you consider Kramer to be an "observer"?

Click to expand...

Dan, I don't know what your question means.

I wish you all the best to find an expert or "observer" who put Hoad at No.1 place for 1953. Good luck!

Sutter lists even 6 winning tournaments for Hoad but there was no big tourney included. Lew's hths might be awesome but still he is not worthy of a No.1 player for 1953 as he failed in the GS tournaments while Rosewall, f. i. won two of them.

I wish you all the best to find an expert or "observer" who put Hoad at No.1 place for 1953. Good luck!

Sutter lists even 6 winning tournaments for Hoad but there was no big tourney included. Lew's hths might be awesome but still he is not worthy of a No.1 player for 1953 as he failed in the GS tournaments while Rosewall, f. i. won two of them.

Click to expand...

And Rosewall was clobbered by Trabert at Davis Cup.
Hoad won the Australian Hardcourt over Rosewall, a national title.

Hoad was clobbered by Seixas in three GS tournaments. I rate this a s a greater blame that to lose to Trabert once.

Australian Hardcourt: probably only Aussies competed

Click to expand...

A major national title, with a classic Hoad/Rosewall match.
In the 1953 Davis Cup match, Hoad drove the ball so hard in the first set that Seixas was KNOCKED OFF HIS FEET, and never recovered his composure. (This point is available on DVD. I urge you to see it.)
Kramer offered the pro contract to the number one amateur, who was....?

Sorry I knew there was someone else I was forgetting. Yes I would definitely bput Hart in the same tier as DuPont and Brough, however I dont think I would put her in a higher tier than them. In fact most of her career DuPont and Brough were considered superior to her, so even if she is better than them, it isnt by much.

I also think Tier 5 is bit too low for Gibson. What she had to overcome to reach the top was incredible, and she was truly a trailblazer for future black women in the game.

Serena probably is tier 2 now but is already the best of tier 2 and will have to be included in tier 1 very soon I predict.

Click to expand...

Gibson was a trailblazer and overcame so much. I had a hard time placing her because career wise I cannot say she is better than say Hingis or equal to Venus or Goolagong...and if I put her Tier 4 its saying she is you know? Not to take anything away from her I just was trying to judge based on on court achievements. Although obviously they were impacted by the nature of the time she lived as well.

As for Hart well I think I give her credit for all her major finals and for the fact she probably might have won another 1 or 2 if not for Connolly.

A major national title, with a classic Hoad/Rosewall match.
In the 1953 Davis Cup match, Hoad drove the ball so hard in the first set that Seixas was KNOCKED OFF HIS FEET, and never recovered his composure. (This point is available on DVD. I urge you to see it.)
Kramer offered the pro contract to the number one amateur, who was....?

Click to expand...

Hi Dan "Double Standard" Lobb,

When I wrote that Rosewall was the best amateur in the second half of 1956, you rightly answered that for the whole year it was Hoad. Now, to push your darling, you claim that Hoad was the best amateur in 1953 even though he only was the best in December (Davis Cup) and Trabert, Rosewall and Seixas were clearly ahead of him...

When I wrote that Rosewall was the best amateur in the second half of 1956, you rightly answered that for the whole year it was Hoad. Now, to push your darling, you claim that Hoad was the best amateur in 1953 even though he only was the best in December (Davis Cup) and Trabert, Rosewall and Seixas were clearly ahead of him...

Be serious!

Click to expand...

For the year 1953 as a whole, there is no doubt, and, as I keep reminding you, Jack Kramer recognized that by offering a pro contract to the number one amateur, and you know who that was.